tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 18, 2014 10:51pm-1:01am EDT
>> we take the viewers out to virginia tech, joined by john green who played a key role in establishing the unmanned aircraft research and test site at the university there. john, good morning to you. tell us where you are sitting right now. >> good morning, john. i'm at the consistentland experimental air station, which is located on a farm outside of blackburg, virginia, a beautiful location. i'm sitting inside, so i can't see it, but beautiful rural location that we've been flying for about six or seven years. >> this site is one of six
designated test sites around the country as they come up with registrationlations for unmanned systems. what is the focus of the work being conducted there at virginia tech, and how does it play into the regulatory effort? >> our research is broad everything from control systems to the application for unmanned aircraft to uses like that, and as we move forward, it's broader. we'll look at the fundmental problems that exist from the technology side and policy side to allow us to mamp date aircraft safely and responsibly. >> as we talked with the earlier guests about the competition for the test sites around the country, there is 25 different proposes. what sets the viers tech site
apart? >> >> well, key thing we bring is brain power, so we've got three universities that are team members that are ranked in the top 50 of research universities in the united states. these are the university of maryland rectors and virginia tech, and we got seven other university team members that bring a variety of strengths and close relationships with the development centers for the federal labs involved in this, and so we think that that relationship that we have and the ability to bring our researchers to work on the really tough problems will allow us to address some of the fundmental issues that exist in allowing us to fly unmanned aircraft safely in the national air space. >> it's the mid at lappic aviation partnership, and as i
understand it, there's a possibility to do future testing in new jersey as part of this effort that you've put together; correct? >> right. our intent is not to fly simply out here. this is a small area, and, again, it's a farm, a working farm, so we don't want to turn it into an airport, and so one of the things that we're looking at is where we're going to fly for the long run. we've got a number of sites that we're looking at, yet in virginia and new jersey and also maryland, where we think that we will be able to do some of the fundamental experimentation required. >> we have a map of the different unmanned aircraft systems, sites around the country that the faa helps put together, the state of nevada, north dakota, griffin international airport in new york, texas a and m university in texas and university of alaska. hiewch coordination, how much work do you do together with
these other five test sitings? >> quite a bit. what i would say is that all six of us and the faa are working together closely to figure ought how we're going to make this work over the long haul. you know, we got challenges ahead of us, not only heard the discussion on regulatory challenges to address, but challenges in terms of funding for the short term, and we are working together to see how we best move forward, and as we do that, i think we're going to find that although we compete with the other five test stytes, that the most important thing to do is collaborates with them and think there's some economies to scale that we can gain by doing that, and, also, we can ensure that we're making the most efficient use of resources, again, to work on this problem that exists.
scwhr where does the funding some for your program in virginia tech? are there federal dollars involved? >> no federal funding at this point. we've had -- we were able to gain funding from the commonwealth of virginia to stand up at the test site. new jersey and maryland are in the process of gaining funding for the next fiscal year, and then we think we've got a way ahead for the short term. for the longer term, it requires industry funding and some federal funding to make these viable enterprises, we have a plan to do that. >> how much funding do we need to make it viable? >> well, so, qeaf crawnched some numbers baht what we need to do, and it's going to be a couple millions of dollars a year per site, i think, as a reasonable number, and in order to make it
viable. the next question is, okay, you request make this viable, but what do we need to do in order to solve these technological and policy issues, and it's the data we need to make data driven decisions on when it is safe and how it is safe to integrate unmanned aircraft into the air space. >> we're talking with jon greene, director of mid atlantic aviation partnership to put together the pack challenge that was eventually picked by the faa and that test site that is now operating down in a farm outside virginia tech university in virginia. here to take your questions, and we want to hear your thoughts as we continue to discuss unmanned vehicles commonly known as drones. going to ray waiting in lispfield, new hampshire on the line for republicans. ray, good morning. >> caller: oh, hi, thank you for taking my call. i used to own a hobby shop, and
you call them drones, but we call them multirow tar hell cometters or what have you, and you know, some of these you can get ready to fly everything in the box under $500, add your own camera to it, high depth camera, get accessories to have first person video or first person views, excuse me, so that you can be monitoring what you're seeing while you're flying, but those have, you know, limited range, even the quadcoppers have a limit the range, you're talking 10 #-12 # minute flight time. .. most of them are remotely controlled. you have to be in controlled with your radio. this is becoming a lot cheaper now. gps autopilot systems --
$400, you can program a flight pattern for your airplane or remote control helicopter. and it really is taking off. all of this is being made in china. we are losing american jobs. but i think what a lot of people -- when they think of drones, they think of the military. with all of the drone strikes overseas and the military use, theme have a bad view of in that regard. i think when you take these drones for commercial use, like farmers or building inspectors -- i have seen these for people who
want to inspect rooftops. they do not want to have to climb up. they can fly over and if they see something, then they get on the roof. the price of these are down so far that it will make it for building inspectors or people who -- the agar first, real estate. host: all right. ray in new hampshire -- what would you say to people who are skeptical or frightened of drone technology? we have heard of a few of those. well, i think it is ok to be skeptical. it is good to ask those questions. when we rolled out cell phones and facebook and twitter and gps capability -- we really did not think about the implications of that technology.
it has a significant privacy concern. that is one that people are concerned about. the other one is safety. but we are trying to do in the faa totes is help the find the regulations that will allow us to make use of some of those capabilities that the caller mentioned can save lives and time and money. to do that and a manner that is responsible, so we do not put people at risk or invade privacy. host: to be clear about these sites -- you are providing data, you're not involved in the regulatory writing? so i think we are all expecting that we will have some role in helping the faa in the rulemaking. our primary function is to provide data to the faa on some of these issues, about what is
required to fly safely. host: on twitter -- where are drones being made? who are the biggest companies investing in this technology? so, to date, the primary investors have been the defense industry. bigral atomics has been a manufacturer. there is a company in virginia, aurora, that is manufacturing unmanned aircraft. certainly, lockheed martin and boeing. there is a subsidiary of boeing. northrop grumman has been a big player. host: back to the phones. las cruces, new mexico on the line for democrats. good morning.
caller: greetings. thank you for taking my call. i am astonished that people cannot see the bad affect -- e ffects that will occur. all of the attractive uses of drones, like monitoring forest fires or finding people lost in the mountains, are very attractive. as on the technology is attractive. what is in store for the bad side or misuse of drones? i have a quick list. first, say goodbye to your american sense of freedom. you will have the psychology of a soviet citizen in a total surveillance society. when you expect that there are drones overhead and you cannot see them -- your psychology will change. ofwill be a deep formation
the american psyche. host: how would you respond? isst: well, what i would say that i do think we need to pay close attention to the unintended consequences. there are privacy concerns that we need to address. i would also say that i think there are methods to address these issues. example, a lawr was passed that allows police and first responders to use unmanned aircraft when necessary to save the life or in an emergency. they are not out there today in virginia collecting on individuals as they go about their day-to-day existence. i do think we need to look at it. as unmanned aircraft become
ubiquitous, there is a threat of that. that, in ao remember lot of cases, there are other ways to obtain the same and permission, other than using a n unmanned aircraft. if i want to spy on my next-door neighbor, what am i want to do is crawl up a tree and put a cam era up there, rather than flying a drone. that drone only fly for 20 minutes. then i have to land it. i have to control it. i do think it is worth investigating. i am not concerned that we will state in a soviet style in the future. host: you bring up the virginia state law that we mentioned in the last segment. here it is again. this is the summary.
state law passed last year places a moratorium on the use of unmanned aircraft systems by state and local law enforcement and regulatory entities until july 1, 2015, except in defined emergency situations. the moratorium does not apply to certain national guard functions or research and development. one of the research site is virginia tech. iss is where jon greene joining us live this morning. there is a view from the outside of the entrance into that lab space in blacksburg, outside of virginia tech university. let's go to christian in bowie, maryland. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question is about national
security. identify? able to we have people in the country -- [indiscernible] will they identify between their drones and our drones? host: you are talking about different government agencies? caller: no. we do not know if the drone is american or not. will they be able to identify those drones? to identifyable u.s. drones versus a possible foreign drone in the united states -- guest: one of the things that we are working on is the ability to track where all of these aircraft are. there is a new program called avsb, i cannot remember what
that stands for. what that will do is provide a transponder to tell you where each aircraft is. the faa would be able to tell what vehicle iswhere and if there is something not carrying a transponder or a transponder is not working. that would stick out like a sore thumb. there is good possibility we will be able to tell who is who in the zoo. host: that technology, who would have access to that? just the faa and the government? or could private citizens find out about that? guest: yes. services subscription that you can purchase. i think there is a time delay on them, for obvious reasons.
difficult for you to know where any single aircraft is at a given second. for example, where you want to shoot something down would be difficult. i do think that there are transcription services available, you can get feeds. for example, a number of pilots laptop that around a has the ability to show where other aircraft are that are carrying transponders. host: on twitter, another question about funding at virginia tech. how does for genentech received funding for its research? is it the dod, do you have military contract? guest: i do not believe we have
any military contracts at the moment. so, our research in the past has been funded by the national science foundation, the office of naval research -- outave had some contracts of naval air systems command. we do not have any right now. this is mostly grant research focused on fundamental patrol systems and services. host: you got into this were coming out of the navy. can you tell us how you got involved in this research? i did have a navy career. my last tour was a small research and development commu nity in virginia beach. i came here to virginia tech to help them develop their navy
research program. this opportunity came up and i was a big supporter. i have been a big supporter of the virginia center for autonomous systems. as a result of my interest, this opportunity came up and i said i would be happy to leave the effort. that is how i got involved. host: we have 15 or 20 minutes left with jon greene. he helped put together the proposal that was picked by the faa to be one of six unmanned system test sites. hone aso to guy on the p we show you video shots from the kentlands laboratory.
he is calling from california on the line for democrats. caller: i will make this as quick as possible. i have a three-part comment and a proposition. i am 100% against drones, whether federal, state, or local. i live in southern california. we feel like we're living in a police state. second, we need to look at the power plants on these platforms. we'll talk about local warming. we do not need to add any more fuel to the fire. third, we need to look at how organized crime may take a dvantage and abuse this technology, including terrorist organizations, who are in this country. host: any comments on any part
of that statement? well, let me start with the first one. use of unmanned aircraft by police forces. there are a number of cases where we want the police to have these capabilities. i can think of a number of cases in hostage situations where i would like to have the ability for unmanned aircraft to get in a building, and maybe fly around and locate -- maybe end up getting shot by the perpetrator, in this case. it does not put anyone's life and risk. i do agree, there needs to be a at how police forces
are allowed to use unmanned aircraft, just like there is a look at how they can use wiretapping. we need to pay attention to that. it is important in a democracy. there are ways that this could be very useful and saved lives. was note last caller the first to bring up concerns about this technology, the systems falling into the hands of terrorists. can you address that concern? guest: i do think that we need to pay attention to that as well. is, ast of the matter the previous caller mentioned, you can get one of these vehicles and expensively. you could potentially do some the various things. the larger vehicles will be expensive and they will be licensed, much like an aircraft is licensed. so, you know, i think if we are
worried about terrorists getting a hold of aircraft, we have taken measures in regard to that with respect to commercial aircraft -- there is nothing to keep iteris from buying a general aviation aircraft today. that could be used as an attack. i think we need to remember that these are tools. tools can be used in a positive manner or a negative manner. i would say that is true for a hammer and it is also true for a gun. it is also true for an unmanned aircraft. we need to look at the policy as we move forward and make sure we are getting it right. host: let's go to david in minnesota on the line for independents. caller: good morning. i appreciate you having this topic on the air and i
appreciate mr. greene as the expert on the topic. overall, the concern with the drones is that we are getting a little too fast on the technology. people are having problems catching up. this is something that people are looking at right now. i am looking at a drone over mr. shoulder and thinking i do not want that hovering over my house. my far larger concern is people. what happens on the highway when there is a neck that? -- an accident. gawkers. now i have a drone flying over city streets, what will people do? stop and start gawking. it will cause all kinds of problems. my real question right now is, how many drones, government, law
enforcement, or commercial are in use right now? thank you. host: is that a number you know offhand? guest: no. i don't know. i am certain that dod has thousands. dsere are hundreds in the han of researchers. then, if you start talking about the quad copter that you can buy at the hobby shop, again, there are many of them out there. more every day. that is a concern that we need to look at. tly, there is no regulation on the operation of unmanned aircraft as a hobby. you can fly up to 400 feet.
you should not be within a certain number of miles of the airport, but other than that, you're supposed to play responsibly and there is no regulation. it is something worth looking at over the next few years. what is the difference between a for a hobby and one that is form for commercial purposes? the rule is that a farmer can go out on his farm and fly a quad copter as a hobby. if you does the same flight profile and looks at his crops, that is not legal. we have some things to work out. host: talk a little bit about the global competition here. we are talking about the drone market. this map is from one of the brochures put out by your group
at virginia tech. countriesin red, the that are developing unmanned aerial systems. they have deployed them, in red. in orange, those who have prototyped systems. and in green, the countries who have systems in development. what is the competition in this market? well, it is pretty fierce and it is getting fiercer. the united states had a when these were only used for military purposes. as we are converting to commercial purposes, the restrictions we are facing from the faa and united states are allowing other countries to move further ahead of us. for example, there is a tremendous amount of crop dusting in japan.
the vast majority -- i think the number is 90%. so, that is an application. we ought to look at it today. there are ways we can do that safely today. if you think about it, there are tons. go ahead. host: here's a story from the wall street journal that talks about drones and regulations overseas. estrone stick flight over europe, regulators rush to catch up. this is from earlier this week. is trailing in the development of unmanned aircraft and its beginning an effort to avoid falling behind on commercial drones. the european union will spell out rules and could reach $27 billion per year.
i will let you finish your statement. guest: what i would say is there are a number of places where they are flying unmanned aircraft today for commercial uses. many of you who watched the olympics noticed during the ski acrobatic event -- there was the shadow of a drone used as a camera. this points out that there are ways to do this. we can limit it today and do it safely. we have to catch up in the regulatory aspects. host: on twitter, any new technology is a double-edged sword with great attention to. brandon, good morning.
caller: thank you for taking my call. a lot of what we're seeing today is concerns about privacy. my concern is about safety. these vehicles fly at 400 feet and i believe that i heard they weigh 55 pounds. if the battery or it runs out of fuel and falls out of the sky, how safe are we if it lands on her head or causes a crash while we are driving? host: jon greene? guest: well, that is my primary concern too. what i would say is, the safety of any tool depends on the weight is used. -- way it is used. it is important that we have trained and responsible operators using these tools as
we move forward. is other thing to recognize the spectrum of risk here. a small quad copter -- i do not think we have one here. that is a lot less risky than one of the vehicles behind me. we need to take a graduated approach to the way we operate. one of the things we are doing as we move forward is focusing on the ideas of low slow and small. we are going to be operating low, at slow speeds, with small aircraft. we will gain confidence in our procedures and train our folks to do things properly before moving forward. that is the kind of philosophy that the faa has about moving forward. you have the safest airspace in the world in the united states
todays. charter is to allow us to integrate unmanned aircraft systems and keep it as safe as it is today. host: talk about what this program has meant to the community in blacksburg. is there any extra safety precaution in place? --st: again, where we are starting out as a working farm. on the farmut here our university employees and students. we have a set of safety procedures that we put into lace -- place before we fly. we have an observer on site at all times. officer, issenior
in place and ready to say at any point that we need to land the aircraft. we have been very careful about the way we have done that. flying over a populated area is the way to start. and to gain confidence in the system themselves. if we have a failure and it falls on the sky, it falls down in damages corn, but not anybody. host: are there restrictions on flying over -- there was a train in the background of one of those pictures, going by as the drone was taking place. guest: right. the area that we are authorized to fly in this not go over those train tracks. we have a very small area here at the farm that we are able to fly in.
we have done unintentionally because we have only made it as far as it needs to be. as we move forward and gain confidence -- and maintain safety, we will fly over larger areas. eventually, we have all seen the amazon commercial -- that they want to deliver things to populated areas. that is where we're are headed, but it will take years. host: we have a few minutes left with jon greene of the mid-atlantic aviation partnership. he is the interim executive director there and is joining us live from the experimental aerial systems laboratory in a blacksburg, near virginia tech. jeff is on the phone from st. louis, missouri. on the line for independents. caller: good morning and thank you very much.
i have his back, but this is absolutely spooky. this is 1984. can you see the ios having their own fleet of drones? the government will have them. they will be buzzing around. they're going to take advantage of it. it will be intimidating and i will want a drone to protect my space. i know i will never be able to buy a drone that will protect me. this is big brother. host: can i ask you to respond to this tweet? what is the difference if police use binoculars, manned aircraft, or drone? caller: personally, a drone is more invest the -- invasive. a helicopter, fine. a drone, small drone -- they are inexpensive, they can
be more people can have them. they can be closer to your house. a helicopter cannot get that close. what can you attach to the strong? -- these drones? all kinds of things. it is truly spooky. host: let's go to georgia on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, sir. how are you? host: you are on with jon greene from virginia tech. caller: i have a commercial drivers license. i see the trait in the background. there is a state highway right there. the expressway goes right by virginia tech. what happens if one of your experiments get out of line?
it is dangerous. host: if you want to respond -- guest: it is potentially dangerous. so is flying an aircraft. what i would say is, where we're flying today is probably 15 miles from 460, which is the expressway that goes next virginia tech. there is literally no way that one of these vehicles would end up over there. up going offend the reservation. that is why we are starting out in unpopulated areas with land that is owned by virginia tech. this is only our own employees here. we notice going on and we can do it safely. as we move forward, we need the same reliability built into the systems that we have in general aviation aircraft today, may be
better. if you think about it, also right next to 460 is the blacksburg aircraft. aircraft are taking off there all day long and flying over 460. there is a risk. there is a risk that one of those aircraft could end up interfering with somebody on 460. what we do is we train our pilots that, in an emergency, you look for an area where you can land safely as possible. we will do the same thing with unmanned aircraft. we have emergency procedures. when there is a problem, they will go to those areas that are preprogrammed, where they can put down safely. host: before we let you go, you told us about your work with the faa. tell us what this industry needs from congress, from your perspective. know, the keyou
thing we need is the ability to make money out of drones. the rules are that you cannot operate an unmanned aircraft system for commercial purposes. ability,there is the with significant restrictions and with clear rules to operate safely in some applications. the things i withdraw our agriculture. we can do that quickly. we need those rules for how we can fly unmanned aircraft systems. that is the bottom line. greene, the interim director, we appreciate you joining us this morning from the laboratory down there near virginia tech. c-span 3. >> "washington journal"
continues. host: we head back to the virginia tech laboratory, where woolsey.ned by craig we have talked a lot about the future today. can you talk about the history of drones? was this borne out of hobbyists or military? where did this start? guest: there has been a confluence from both directions. the military has been using these systems for decades. the first uses were aerial targets, really. unmanned systems were used for reconnaissance early in the vietnam war. some would say the earliest was who flew oney, mile down the potomac river before the wright brothers had their first flight. hobbyists have developed their
own technology for decades as well. really, being very innovative with that. recently, the miniaturization of electronics made it possible to do more. my graduatearch, students use a lot of products developed by innovators and hobby markets. there is a confluence leading to progress. host: talk about the difference between unmanned systems and autonomous aircraft. we are using these terms interchangeably. explain the difference. for giving meou the opportunity to do that. unmanned aircraft are vehicles that do not have human operators or passengers on board. they are not necessarily self-control. they may be robotically operated. says we are working on
unmanned aircraft systems. every system will have a pilot in command. it is true that aircraft are capable of controlling their own flight. that is what we mean by autonomous. autonomous flight is self-controlled flight. an autonomous car is a self driving car. we are interested in advancing this technology at making it possible for vehicles to really control themselves. we are experienced with this with cruise control. thinkt these vehicles to well enough to behave safely. host: when we read stories about amazon package deliveries and see video projections of drones delivering packages down streets, is that farther off than the work you are doing now? guest: i think it is. the grand vision --
there are a lot of problems to solve. is would be that jeff bezos going to fly a package from broadway -- there are a lot of technological problems to solve. there will have to be awnings and tree branches and traffic lights in the way. the aircraft will have to behave safely. it will have to synch well enough to mitigate hazards. i heard a caller from louisiana ask what happens when there is a failure? the vehicle needs to deal with that in a way that a human operator would. i think it is a little far off. one of the problems that the faa is concerned about is the ability to see and avoid other aircraft. we have not solved by a. -- that yet. host: what sort of license to
your pilots need? we saw one earlier. we are showing one now. what kind of license do they have to fly those vehicles? what do the other people do there? well, the pilot in command has taken the faa written exam. some are actual private pilot. they have also passed a medical exam. there are two medicals. in addition, there are personnel around to our scanning the airway for other aircraft. in the same sense that a driver scans the highway for other drivers who may be misbehaving, we assume that all of the drivers are licensed and trained at some point. that does not mean they are all behaving properly. we always scan the roadway for other traffic hazards.
the faa requires the same thing of pilots. whether general aviation or manned aircraft. the aircrafts that cannot do this and avoid attacks on its own. in addition to the pilot, who is flying the aircraft, there are other personnel to make sure that the plane is de-conflicted with other air traffic. host: we're talking with craig woolsey, director of the research center we have been featuring today. we're taking your calls and questions and comments for the next 40 minutes or so, as we continue to discuss drones. professor, you talked about the miniaturization of the technology. here's a question for michael on twitter -- paranoia aside, is it true that nanotechnology can make drones small enough to become a " fly
on the wall?" guest: i will not say no. there is definitely interest in pushing these things down. you can develop new capabilities. the smallest i know of is at harvard, the robo fly. it is an amazing vehicle. so yes, there is a move towards miniaturization. the applications are -- a lot of the work has been turned by the defense agency. they have their own applications of mind. we do not work at that jail in my lab. -- scale in my lab. host: we are seeing several drones over your shoulders. can you talk about the drones in use at virginia tech? guest: absolutely. my group works with primarily fixed wing aircraft, which is what people think of when you talk about airplanes.
i have a colleague who works with rotary aircraft, which is helicopters. and i have a colleague in plant pathology, and the college of agriculture. he uses fixed wing aircraft to study plants. these are used for a variety of research activities, focused on everything from plant pathology to bio security. in my case, i have aircraft that we used to study flight control. i have a colleague who is very interested in making these vehicles operate more effectively in difficult conditions. we use these to go out and demonstrate the controlled algorithms. guest: several folks are waiting to ask you questions. we will start in ohio on the line for independents. good morning, linda. caller: good morning, professor. i wanted to talk about the failure of congress and the
state to anticipate the legal infrastructure needed to protect citizens. my question is, this is way behind in technology. cell phones and everything else. what happens when the press gets a hold of them? what happens when private investigators decide to use them? what happens in a divorce situation where a husband or wife decides to stock their sp ouse? how long will it take to adjudicate? host: professor? guest: thank you, those are great questions. i think that the legal construct will evolve in parallel with the technology. my fear is that our fears will present a technology that does have a lot of uses -- andable uses to society
might be stunted on concerns that could be addressed through existing procedures. i think your points are well taken. they have come up when other technologies have evolved. the ability to have cell phones, for example. or what comes to mind is the face recognition. seehe same time, will we football stadiums for people who committed misdemeanors or something like that? these are legitimate concerns. that the have faith legal system will keep pace with the development of technology. maybe you have less faith. my fear is that if we are to afraid of the potential misuse of technology, and there are some, we will avoid the technology altogether. --t: a question from twitter
is there an educational program available that will teach you how to be a drone pilot? there are such programs. we do not have one here at virginia tech. we focus more on the engineering of systems. there are other universities in our consortium and around the country that are developing programs focused on training people to be unmanned operators. that is important. it is important that the operators of these vehicles are well trained and well versed in these regulations. i see the technology evolving in a way that you have relatively few, well certified operators, who provide services. maybe everyone will have a drone and operate these things and create hazards. i think the reality will be closer to relatively few trained operators providing services to consumers and clients.
host: let's go to fill in clearwater, florida. caller: good morning. great show. as a former land owner and farmer, if i saw one of these over my house, i would shoot it down. that is all there is to it. what do you think about that? i know americans will not put up with this. host: professor? guest: well, you are not the first person to suggest that. there is a congressional candidate in montana who says he would do the same thing in his campaign videos. that is dangerous. the vehicles that are in their, they are there legitimately. sophisticatedy vehicles. if you shoot at one, it will not operate to where it is supposed to. it may pose a danger to people on the ground. the concern over --
i gather that your concern is that the reason the vehicle is there is to invade your privacy. that is a policy concern. jon,rmer colleague -- addressed that issue as well. host: we showed our viewers a poll that came out yesterday. of their study of technology and the next 50 years. at the public is largely unenthusiastic about these of nonmilitary drones in the country. 63% of americans who would be a change for the worse it personal commercial drones are used. are those number surprising to you? guest: i think there is a good
reason that those are the numbers that show up in the polls. we have unmanned operating systems in public view for years. -- providingity security for war fighters in afghanistan. them providing intelligence and surveillance -- at theaissance militaristic uses, the reasons why they were developed heard what we will not s. oft of my job and the job these unmanned aerial system test sites is to go out in a very controlled way and demonstrate the potential commercial uses of these vehicles and uses by first responders and others that will help to sway opinion. i'm not surprised that is the prevailing opinion. host: matthew in louisiana on
line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. in google earth live on google and it showed that they have a pilot program in california where they are watching everything that is being done on our streets. if you punch that up, it will show you the pilot program. i'm sure drones are some of the problem. as american citizens, do we really want to be watched 24 hours a day? the government is not our parents. e are other ther privacy concerns besides this emerging grown technology? caller: right. it isre some of the distrf
drones, but i was shocked when i read up on that. missouri on our live for republicans. good morning. hello. if thereting to know is any relation between the drone and the picture i am saying on television with the fellow from virginia tech -- between that and the old flying saucers back in the 1950's. i have seen this with my whole family in jefferson county. these saucers flying up in the and making a weird noise
lights flashing and everything and all of a sudden it took off. host: you think these old stories might be a government drone as opposed to some of these other explanations out there? i think it might be the start of something like that. airline pilots have all seen these. host: you talked the bit about the history of drones earlier. how long have these larger drones like the large helicopter behind you -- how long has that technology been around? technology specific behind me has been around for a couple of decades. the 1990's is when they were introduced in japan. mr. green talked about how japan -- 90% is autonomous vehicles. the fellow in the pickup truck who drives from field to field
and watch as the vehicle and sprays fertilizer or herbicide -- the technology has been around for a long time. passenger aircraft has been capable of this operation for a long time. the ability to do this is not new. what is new is the idea that you would have an unmanned aircraft system with no pilot or passengers on board. that is what is bringing up the policy concerns. host: staying on technology for a second. an e-mail from bill in pennsylvania. "if the drone loses power, a parachute is deployed for soft that is oneest: thing they have looked at. there are others. with these aircraft, if you lose power, you may be able to recover the aircraft if -- in our operations, we are high
enough and close enough to the airfield that we can still bring t in.ircraft and glid i there are ways to fix or recover the aircraft. in the case where that is just not possible, there are additional mitigations you can take to guarantee that the risk of injury or damage to property is minimum. bring out the aircraft in a way that will minimize the risk of collateral damage. host: one caller was concerned drones.ollution from what do they run on? the unmanned behind me is electric powered. that is becoming more common as the motors get better and power batteries get better. we will see more of that use of the power system. and doesis it quiet not admit exhaust, it is also
very reliable. the best engine pollution systems are historically very reliable. i think at one time 40% of the losses of unmanned aircraft, the propulsion performance problems. you are seeing move toward electric power. they don't have long endurance, but that is changing. het power you mentioned -- mentioned global warming and other concerns. some of the uses of these technologies are to address exactly those concerns. the ability to have an aircraft in the air for a day and a half, ocean allows you scanning ofedented
those problems. the vehicles are being used to address exactly that kind of problem. one of the issuesst: you brought up is replacing some of the current technologies that are out there like cropdusting planes with more precision use of drones. explain that effort. guest: in general, one of the reasons why doing cropdusting with an aircraft is appealing is it's a dangerous occupation. at one time, it was the most werhal occupation for manpo in the united states. cropdusting is still an effective and efficient way to apply fertilizer or herbicide. it is very dangerous.
automating that particular operation, there is tremendous potential for the vehicle. if you move to a smaller scale and vehicles capable of hovering in place and doing detailed imagery, you can start to address the problems we treat with herbicide. we are concerned about disease. it is expensive to do that and not environmentally sound. it would be better if you could find where the disease is starting to emerge and go and treat it right there. it will cost a lot less and result in higher yield and the less run off of these chemicals. host: sam waiting in blacksburg, virginia on our line for democrats. good morning. i was regina chosen to have the test site -- why was virginia chosen to have the test site? guest: thank you very much.
virginia tech has a well-established history of using unmanned air systems for these research purposes that i talked about. --the national airspace control of economist vehicles, many of them have chosen to work indoors for the problems of getting approval from the faa. it's an onerous process. we committed to doing that. working with the ffa in order to operate safely. having developed that relationship with the faa played virginiae in an virgini tech's selection. we have accomplished partners in our program. a number of universities and commercial organizations that are cutting edge with the
technology. the overall team is outstanding and virginia tech's history helped us to win the award. host: we are showing a video of one of your student pilots bringing in one of these smaller drones that was tested earlier this month. what kind of jobs are the student pilots and the researchers down there at your lab going to go into? host: the students are all pursuing aerospace engineering degrees. they're getting masters or doctorate in aerospace engineering. they're studying advanced mathematics. the kinds of jobs they will go into might include working for companies like some of the smaller companies we mentioned earlier. boeing lockheed martin. service go into civil
working at places like the faa or nasa. a number of them may go into academia and continue the fundamental research. host: ted on a republican line from florida. good morning. concernedm a little with the program. why haven't we discussed the technology that is already out usingthat i happen to be that makes the government itself on and flies the dgi platform? in one hour, the american public can go to any local hobby shop and spend $1500 and be a drone and attach a go pro to it and videotape or do any surveillance they would like to do in a quicktime and easy
fashion. with a drone that connects to satellites and is failproof. that is a great question. for privates citizens to go and buy or build and fly drones has been codified since at least 1981. john mentioned the advisory circular in 1981. as long as you keep it below 400 feet and below 55 pounds, you can go and fly. that is a great question. the technology is there. that brings up a point i would like to make. i think about these policy issues at some. who can violate your privacy? let's play that game. the government is physically
capable of violating her privacy. people are very sensitive to that right now after the snowden revelations. people are rightfully concerned about what the government can and can't do with these vehicles. david industry might be able to violate your privacy. a good example of that is someone mentioned google earlier. they had this idea that they were going to develop street view. we will add imagery to our maps of the environment and people walking around in the city and we can look at their street view and see where they are. there was a lot of outrage over that. people are in the pictures. we will blur the faces and license plates and they put up the website so if you think your face is not poor enough, you can ask them to make it blurrier. they put in policies to address this. this is the third entity . . concern.
there are harassment laws on the books. people can do that. that concern has nothing to do with the commercial use of unmanned aerial systems, which is trying toaa address. hobby use is already there. they can put a camera on and go and fly legally. the wood is illegal is the kinds of things that will turn the tide of public opinion and allow us to make advances in service to civil society with commercial uses. "am i allowed to shoot down a drone over my >> guest: you are not. so, a drone -- so the faa controls the air space, and in fact they have come out -- i think there was a county in colorado that issued a hunting license for drones or something like that. the faa's response was that is a really bad idea. you'll potentially create a
serious safety hazard. so, no, it is not legal to shoot down a drone operating over your property. however, it is perfectly in your right to find out who is doing it and bring it to the attention of law enforcement. it may be a harassment case. >> host: we have 10 or 15 minutes left with craig woolsey. bringing him to you live from virginia tech systems in virginia. let's go back to the phone. tony in newport, tennessee. on our line for independents. >> caller: i just have a couple comments. itself it wasn't for technology the united states would be where it is today. and the callers are bewildering, like the one that said, if there's an accident and a drone, people will be looking at the drone. obviously never been on route 40
when the bus from the church killed those people and went off the road and locked up the traffic for 24 hours in both directions. the other guy who said the nudist doesn't want the helicopters -- he obviously doesn't remember back, way back when, on the desert there was a. woman laying on a -- from outer space they were down on top of her when they were looking for the -- confiscating somebody back then. and it goes on and on and on. it wasn't for technology safety now wouldn't be where it is now. the drones can cover the borders, cover the seas, they can cover everything a lot better for just -- from other countries mostly by boat. that about all i have to say. i'm behind technology. i have a cousin, a teacher, used to be where you are.
he actually designed parts for telestar, i black you 100%. >> host: your thoughts on tony's comments. >> guest: thank you very much nor your comments. i agree with you. a lot of really compelling applications for the systems that people need to keep nine while they're continuing to raise concerns that they have. certainly there are lots of examples of operations of manned aircraft that could be made safer if we automated them. i have colleagues in the sciences who routinely will fly low and fast, radio surveying and things like that. or you think of the recent incidents of police officer helicopters, one in atlanta, that crashed and killed a couple of occupants and they were trying to monitor a situation. so these things happen. first responders, i think, were -- it would be a real
tragedy if we don't enable first responders access to this technology in the case of disasters. >> host: a question from twitter. how high can drones fly and collect atmospheric data? how does weather affect data collection? >> guest: good collection. the drones fly up to above 60,000 feet. we have high altitude, long encurrency craft that can fly above commercial traffic and stay there for more than a day. weather is a concern. drones don't fly anywhere that manned aircraft don't fly, and my case here, the condition of our authorization from the faa require that we fly in what are called visual flight rules condition, fair weather, plenty of visible and low wind. >> arrest. >> let's go to mike. >> caller: good morning. i had an opportunity to be a
test engineer for lockheed missiles when they were developing the -- a drone -- three clicks away could do a figure-eight-put a laser beam on a target and had a missile from ten clicks away to hit the target. likewise, -- making sleeps on areas of land, maybe miles wide, looking -- using artificial intelligence techniques, looking for items that were not natural items, like tanks or similar objects. at the time it was developed for a gap scenario and then the
soviet union collapsed and so did our program. but we perfected ours somewhere around the 1984-1985. it was working and the army had accepted it as basically a gap artillery spotter. so, that's my story. i hear everything and i see all the things about drones. there's nothing really particularly frightening about them, except maybe navigation gets off a little bit, which we had problems with that. a couple -- we were -- in arizona, flights got lost, and headed towards tucson or mexico city, and sierra vista. fortunately there were no accidents. again, it was a new technology
we were starting. >> host: thank you for your story, professor woolsey. he seemed to be talking more about his experience on the military drone side. >> guest: yeah. and that's a great comment. we, as american taxpayers, have been supporting the development of this technology for decades and it's very capable. however, the development to date has been for military purposes, and so that's what we see in the news. the vehicles have been developed to serve very specific military purpose, and we have an opportunity now to realize a benefit from all that investment, a dividend from the investment that the department of defense has made in the development of this technology. we can only find a path to certification for commercial use and that's what test sites are about. helping the faa help make it possible for companies and service providers to make money, using unmanned aerial systems in the national air space system in the united states to solve
problems that need to be solved. >> host: are the biggest challenges for you right now the regulatory side or technology side? >> guest: regulatory. there are some technology hurdles, and one of them i mentioned is this requirement that the aircraft be able to see and avoid other aircraft. that's the one that the faa holds up as the major hurdle for us to clear. but honestly, the reason the faa is in the position they're in of establishing these test sites is because there's such a clamor from the developers of the technology, have for years been developing it and selling it to the military to allow them to adapt the technologies for realliyful -- really useful -- civil and agriculture, and agriculture happens in rural areas where there's not a lot of air traffic, and also agriculture is a major driver of our economy.
a huge benefit to increase yield and increase crop security. a tremendous benefit to be had, and in the process we'll develop a sense of trust in the systems and develop the technology as well. we'll address concerns as they arise, and -- i definitely see policy as the bigger of the challenges right now. >> host: those six faa unmanned aircraft system test sites around the country on the map you can see in front of you. university of alaska, texas a&m, the state of nevada, north dakota department of commerce, griffiths international airport in new york, and of course virginia tech, where we are bringing our viewers live this morning on a special show today of "the washington journal." this is video from earlier this month of a drone test that happened at the virginia tech test site. let's good to nelson from tennessee on our line for democrats. nelson, you're on with professor
woolsey. >> caller: yes, good morning. my question is -- i understand that we live in a very rural area, agricultureal community. understand that agricultural research has been done and is official. i wonder, has research been done with the units and how cost effective will it be and how many -- how i widespread will it be done per unit. and i'll hang up and listen. >> guest: thank you, nelson. a great question. the uses as -- as the uses evolve it will become clearer
what is and isn't cost effective. my colleagues here and the college of agriculture and life sciences who are hosting us. the laboratory is on the college farm, which is a 2,000-acre farm here in southwest virginia. our colleagues in agriculture are very interested in advancing the technology, and i have one colleague in particular, a professor in pathology, physiology and weed science department and has enmotivatetive ideas how to use the systems. he is interested in plant disease and how it spreads. fungal disease, for example, and so he uses small unmanned aerial systems to collect plant pathogens spores, tiny little spores released bay diseased plant and carried up and bounced around in the atmosphere until they're deposited on another healthy plant and then infect it. why would you use unmanned aerial systems? because they're sparsely distributed. they're tiny, these particles.
so you have to sample huge volumes of air to get a statistically significant sample. with a small unmanned vehicle you can sample 20,000-liters of air in 20 minutes and develop a very good measurement of what your looking for and may be able to identify the location more easily and more quickly and then mitigate it, treat it, using an unmanned aerial system. so there's a lot of innovative thinking going on how to use the systems inning a call and not just crop-dusting. >> host: how did you get involved in this work and what is your speech research area? >> guest: my backgrounds is in control theories, so i develop mathematical models of vehicles and then develop theory to help the -- based on the models, to help the vehicles control themselves better, and the
application, because i'm in an aero space and ocean engineering department, the application of interest to me and my sponsors is vehicle control. so we work with atmospheric flight vehicles, like fixed wing aircraft, and awe -- autonomous underwater vehicles. >> host: ed in winston-salem, north carolina, on our line for republicans. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i had to walk away from my tv so i can't listen to the answer unless i stay on, but i'll head back inside. i just want to know how long these things are legally allowed to fly? i nowow had some callers call up and talk about shooting them down, and i don't necessarily -- it may be illegal but i don't know i wouldn't do that too if i didn't know what it was. i think we got enough corruption in our government. that's why people are concerned.
we have an attorney general that refused to enforce certain laws. that disturbing. and that is where i have a problem with it. i was the technology -- i love the technology and the idea and love to see it go forward but there are legitimate concerns about this. i want to know how low these things can fly. i can have a no trespassing sign on my property. if i'm a thousand yards from anybody, you're telling me a private citizen can comply this thing ten feet above my house and i'm not allowed to do anything? i'll take the answer. i'm back upstairs now. >> guest: make sure you can hear your answer and good to professor woolsey in virginia tech. >> guest: so, there are a couple of questions there and both of them very good. how high -- how low can these air craft flies? in my case aim required to keep the aircraft below 400 feet. the faa's concern is deconflicting the operations of these vehicles with other aircraft. so i think the nature of your question is more, do i own the
air space over my property, and the answer is really, no. the faa regulates that air space, and so you don't have right to build a really, really, really tall tower that would potentially conflict -- cause a hazard for air traffic without letting the faa know that. you can't launch your own uav up to several thousand feet. it might interfere with other air traffic. so the faa is concerned about the air space and the regulate the air space from the ground up. now, there are people who think that we should look at sort of minimum altitude limits, and in fact australia is fairly advanced in their development of policy for these vehicles. and because of their advancement in the development of policy, they're seeing issues arise. they're seeing the problems arise, and it's not because they have more problems than we do. it's just they're allowing more operations than we are because their policy is more advanced. for example, there was a recent
incident where a young woman, a try athlete was hit by a multivehicle that washington filming the triathlon, and she went to the hospital. turned out the operator was not -- as far as the news report is read, the operator was not licensed and there is a licensing program in australia, and the operator was operating illegally. in australia they have a minimum altitude, i think 30 meters. they need toe the vehicles to -- particularly the scenarios where you need to get away from people. you need to be high enough to have room to do that. and if you're too low -- altitude is safety for pilots and unmanned aerial systems. so there's some interest in maybe establishing minimum heights as well. but, no, the faa regulates the air space all the way down. >> host: professor craig woolsey is the director of the virginia center for autonomous systems. you can check out his work at
virginia tech's web site unmanned -- we appreciate you joining us this morning on "washington journal." >> guest: thank you for having me. >> on the next "washington journal" "los angeles times" reporter looks ahead to the federal reserve's next move on monetary policy. anny snyder discusses a proposal that would amend the clean water act to give the epa jurisdiction over streams and wet leans, and lee rainey of the pew research center talks about a study that 18% of adult with internet access had important information stolen last year. you can join the conversation at facebook and twitter. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> booktv will continue in prime time next week while
congress is in recess. monday night, we're dealing with slavery and emancipation. at 8:30 eastern, agreeing grandon, author of empire of slavery. then a book, slavery's exiles. the story of the american maroons and later, david byron davis talks about his work, the problem of slavery in the age of emancipation. book tv and primetime all next week here on c-span. -- c-span2. >> whether it's an award for good journalism as a politician i declare an interest in not wanting to make a judgment on that. but an award for public service, for possibly the greatest betrayal of our national secrets of all time, strikes me is a quite bizarre. and i do think that there's a real danger of the very cozy media world, patting itself on
the back with -- without understanding the consequences of the dangers we face in a dangerous world. there's a dangerous disconnect there as for "the guardian" newspaper. gave the name of operatives outside of the uk jurisdiction that would be in breach of the 2000 terrorism act. that would apply to me as an individual, why not apply to a newspaper? >> this weekend on c-span, former british defense secretary liam fox on edward snowden, government surveillance programs, and privacy issues. saturday morning, 10:00 eastern. on booktv, from texas, the san antonio book festival. including authors and panels of the stories that shaped san antonio and the nsa big brother and democracy, saturday, starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2.
on american history tv, tour the nsa's national crip tollingic museum and breaking codes. sunday on c-span3. >> next on booktv, paul kengor discusses what it's like to be a reagan conservative. an hour and 15 minutes. [applause] >> thank you, ashley. and thank you, andrew, andrew coffin, a gross city college graduate. i think andrew was in my first class i taught in -- literally, i think he was. and thank you to pat coyle as well. ron robinson, who is not here, but the young america foundation long-time executive director,
and thank you for all that you do for young people, for campuses across the country, and for conserving and preserving the reagan ranch and reagan legacy. ronald reagan and reagan conservativism was about conserving and preserving as well. so that's something -- more on that in a minute. also, too, thanks to c-span for being here. people often call c-span and they say, thank god for c-span. i echo that. there's not many sources out there as objective as c-span. they just put it out there, unedited, no commentary, let it speak for itself, and there's so many talks like this that go on all around the country, thousands of times a year, and i'll often -- just be a camera here to capture this and record it and broadcast it, and only c-span does that. so, much appreciated. my topic today what is a reagan conservative?
and as ashley said, it's based on my new book "11 principles of a reagan conservative" and this question, what is a reagan conservative? you hear -- if you do a google search right now, or last time i did search, on the words reagan conservative. came up with 30 million hits of different people trying to define and it what it means. and a lot of that is because so many republican candidates statewide, local races, nationwide, presidential candidates, say, over and over again, when asked what they believe, they'll say i'm a reagan conservative. but what is that? and i think in many cases they say it's not so much because maybe they even necessarily totally know what a reagan conservative is, but many of them want to emulate reagan's political success. reagan's political appeal. think about this. here is a man, in 1980, who won
44 out of 50 states against an incumbent president. 44 out of 50 states. one of the reasons that jimmy carter does so much is this lingering sense of rejection that he must have in 1980. it's a good heart, too. i don't want to belittle that, but that was -- think about that. for an incumbent president to lose 44 out of 50 states in 1984 reagan was re-elected by winning 49 out of 50 states. and the only state that he didn't win was minnesota. which was the home state, right, of his challenger, walter mondale. and that is -- so reagan twice won states that the republicans today can only dream of winning. won california twice, won new jersey twice. won massachusetts twice. people are laughing.
it's ridiculous. could never happen again. my home state of pennsylvania. he won twice. the second election he won -- he won the electoral college by a vote of 525 to 13. so there is no need to recount florida. in that race. the combined electoral college margin in these two presidential races was 1,014 to 62. so, what republican wouldn't want to be like reagan? in that sense. if you think about it, too ronald reagan -- his presidency -- not just that he got elected but when he left office he had the highest approval rating than any president since eisenhower. and if you go before reagan -- he replaces a president who fails to get re-elected, an
incumbent. that was jimmy carter. prior to carter was gerald ford, who never won a presidential election. then prior to that you had richard nixon, who resigned in disgrace. prior to that, lj, whose presidency went so bad that he declined to even pursue his party's re-nomination for president. lbj replaced president who was killed in office. if you go back before eisenhower, harry talked about being a prisoner of the presidency. truman had the highest disapproval rating basically until george w. bush. go back to the '20s. woodrow wilson's presidency two terms, ended in despair. he had two or three strokes in the final 18 to 24 months of his presidency. go after reagan. george h.w. bush got elected in
1988 largely because, as anybody in here over 30 would remember, largely because it was the best people could do, they taught, to get a third term of reagan. right? he won one term. that was it. he lost in 1992 to bill clinton. clinton wins with 43% of the vote. roughly. that was it. because of the third party candidacy of who? ross perot. clinton in '96 didn't get over 50% of the vote. 2000, george w. bush gets in without even winning a majority of votes. and then 2004, the second bush term, bush leaves office, bush around 2007 had the worst gallup approval up numbers since any president since harry truman. obama wins in 2008. 2012, obama actually is the first president in history, though he was the first
democrat, i believe, since lbj to get over 50% of the vote, but in 2012 he was elected with -- first president to do this -- elected with less popular votes and electoral college votes in this re-election. reagan won 49 out of 50 states in this re-election. obama won 26. a bare majority. and if you look at a map of counties, under reagan it was a sea of red. under obama it was still a sea of red. if you look at counties. and speaking of obama, there was a poll done in 2013, after the 2013 -- after the second inaugural, which asked americans if ronald reagan were to run today, against barack obama, who
would you vote for? they said raying by 58% over obama. right after obama's re-election in 2013. here's really fascinating. how is obama elected principle my? thing you vote. that same poll -- the youth vote. the same poll they asked people ages 18 to 34, who would you vote for, reagan or obama, they picked reagan. they picked reagan. unlike the gallup -- gallup does a president's day poll every president's day, annual president's day poll. doing this 13 times since 2001. reagan placed first among the american public as far as questions, who isure all-time favorite president. reagan got it in 2001, 2005, 2011, 2012. and reagan usually finishes in the top three. typically beats lincoln. and imagine that.
there was in june 2005 a poll done by aol and time warner -- aol online, which surveyed americans, and they didn't give them a choice. they asked them to put in whichever name they wanted. the greatest mesh -- greatest american of all-time. novelty the greatest president. the greatest american. 2.4 million people responded which any statics will tell you is far and away a representative sample. you only need maybe 500 people to do this polling. and reagan won. greatest american of all-time. so, one republican wouldn't want to be like reagan? right? who wouldn't aspire to that success. you now have republican groups all over the country, county, state groups, they have been holding these annual lincoln day dinners for years. they've been changing the names of those to reagan day dinners because the lincoln day dinners were in february, which is the
month of president's day lincoln's birthday and february is also the month of ronald reagan's birthday. so now many republican groups have in a sense reagan replacing lincoln of all things. all right. so, i get asked all the time by media people and others, which candidate is the most like reagan? where would reagan stand on this issue or that issue? and begs the question, what did ronald reagan believe? this poster boy, this face of conservativism, the standard bearer of the republican part, what did he believe? reagan never really gave a definition of conservativism. i think he was afraid to try. but february 6, 1977, which was his 66th birthday, and he
spoke at cpac, the conserve political action conference. reagan spoke there 13 times. every year of his presidency. reagan spoke to cpac, and here in this particular address, which in the become of the book i have -- the back of the book i have the full february 1977 reagan cpac speech. it's a gem. he said, conservativism can mean different things to those who call themselves conservatives, and it can. really the essence of conservativism, if you want a definition from me and then i'll geoff you reagan's definition -- conserves seek to conserve and preserve the time-tested values and ideas that they believe best serve the country, citizens, and people everywhere. the ideas that over time have proven to work, have proven to be the best. and in fact give you a
recommendation. that's pretty consistent with the definition given by russell kirk. who is one of the philosophical authors, his books in the 1950s and '6s and 70s. reagan said this in the cpac speech. conservatives. the common sense and common decency of ordinaries men and women, working out their own lives and their own ways. this is the heart of american conservativism. conservative wisdom and principles are derived from a willingness to learn not from what is going on now but what happened before. what has happened before. chesterton called the democracy of the dead. the idea that our ancestors have something to say. we should stop and heed and think about what they learned before us.
which doesn't mean that everything they what done 200 or 400 or 500 years ago was right. the definition is the time-tested values that have endured over time. reagan continued: the principles of conservativism are sound because they're based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind. this is our pat trim moan any in a way. you don't just throw all the stuff out because you suddenly think ruth now you know better. reagan: when we conservatives say we know something about political affairs and what we know can be stated as principle, we're saying that the principles we hold dear are those that have been found through experience to be ultimately beneficial for individuals, for families, for communities, and for nations. found through the often bitter
testing of pain or sacrifice and sorrow. comes up all the time. the issue of same-sex marriage is so dominant in all of these discussions. but that is a case right there where the conservative position on that isn't to try to be mean and deny people marriage rights and so forth, or tell two people who love each other they can't come together. the conservative believes that there's something to learn from an institution that has been the way it has been for multiple thousands of years. and to be real careful about an issue where, just 20 years, 1993, the entire democratic party and liberalism and the clintons defined marriage as between a man and a woman, and now just 20 years later, anyone who disagrees with them they call them a big got and all sorts of names. the conservative would say, whoa, hold on a second. just 20 years ago you were all where we are now.
and now we're the radicals? the conservative says, let's stop and look back and see what we know about this through experience. where you're going now with that idea is not time-tested. it's not time-tested. so, reagan told cpac also that the old lines dividing social and economic conservatives were disappearing, and reagan said that a real true conservative needed to be both a social and an economic conservative. and reagan was both. reagan was really the total complete conservative. not just conservative on some issues, tax cuts and so forth, but on both social and economic issues. so, as ashley said, in this book i lay out 11 principles of reagan conservism, and i don't know how i came up with 11 other than i laid out principled and i stopped and counted and the were
11. some people said you should do ten and make it like the ten commandments but i'd have to combine them. there aren't 10, there are 11. this is what i got. i got 11 and i don't want to come boundary them so i have 11 principles. all right. so, here they are. and there will be a quiz at the end of this. so, make sure you take notes. actually, you have a cheat sheet in the book right there, and on c-span you have a dvr so you can rewind it. 'll rattle them off: freedom, faith, family, sanctity and dignity of human life, american exceptionalism, the founders' with and vision, lower taxes, limited government, peace through strength, anticommunism and belief in the individual. so, those are the 11. i won't have time to go through all 11 of these, but i'm going to go through a few and then
check the clock and at some point you'll have to drag me off the stage here, but i don't have time to go through all 11, so i'll just hit a few. the first of these freedom, reagan spoke constantly of freedom. over and over and over again. the time for choosing speech, which he gave on behalf of barry goldwater, october 27, 1964, said that mankind from the swamp to the stars, the long ascent from the swamp to the stars, has above all struggled to be free. struggled to be free. and by reagan's reckoning, people everyone needed freedom. at that time in 1964 when he wrote the speech, freedom in particular was something that was lacking in the communist world. and reagan there talked about acuban boat person escaping castro's cuba, and he said how lucky he is he had a place to
escape to. and reagan said, if we lose freedom here in america, there's no place to escape to. this is the last stand on earth. if we lose freedom here in america there's no place to escape. this is the last stand on earth. and reagan felt americans needed to understand this. they needed to understand this freedom thing. they need to understand it today, too. in his swan song, farewell speech from the oval office, january 1989. beautiful speech written by peggy noonan and that is one of the four speeches in the back of the book. reagan talk about what he called a freedom man, and i'll quote here. he says that he has become increasingly pensive in the last few weeks as he prepares to leave washington. he prepares to go back home to california. to rancho right up sure about 40 minutes up the road and talks
about look to go white house window. i've been thinking a bit at that window and been reflect ago on the past eight years and what they meant, and the image that comes to mind, like a refrain, is a nautical one. a small story about a big ship and a refugee and a sailor. the height of the boat people. the vietnamese boat people who escaped communist after the fall of saying -- saigon, after we left and vietnam became communist and thousands of people fleeing the country like in cuba as well. the sailor, the american sailor, was hard at work on the carrier midway, which was patrolling the south china sea. the crew spied on the horizon a leaky little boat. and crammed inside were refugees from indo-china, hoping to get to america. the midway sent a small launch to bring them to the ship in safety. as the refugees made their way through the choppy seas, one
spied the sailor on deck and he stood up and he called out to him -- one of the boat people -- look up, called out to him as sailor pulled out his hand to pull him up and he yelled, hello american sailor. hello freedom man. hello american sailor. hello freedom man. so, imagine that. at that moment, this boat person, he is more than just a boat person. he is a spokesperson. a spokesperson for freedom. a spokesperson for american exceptionalism. as reagan was at that moment. got a symbol here, more profound and deeper than the south china sea. imagine, looks up -- doesn't look up and say, hello, sailor, hello, navy guy. hello, military man. hello, sir. hello, american sailor. hello, freedom man.
freedom man. the freedom man. reagan, a mall moment with a big meaning, a moment the sailor what wrote it in a letter couldn't get out of his mind, and when i saw it, neither could i. because that is what it meant to be an american in the 1980s. we stood again for freedom. for reagan, that's what it meant to be an american again in the 1980s. we stood again for freedom. now, freedom has so many manifestations and you'll hear conservatives talk about freedom mantra, but ways i try to express this to my students, it can mean regulation, it's easier to open a business if you're not burdened by regulations. you need the freedom to be able to open and start a business. and in some countries you can't because of all the onerous regulations. taxes. high taxes rob you of freedom. if you -- if 50% -- if 50% of
your income goes to taxes, that's 50% less of your income. money that you could use to do landscaping, to pay off a student loan, to pay down a mortgage, to buy a new dishwasher to buy a second car, to hire a plumber, to -- any number of different things. to give to charity. money that you can use to give to charity. the more that the government takes a. in your taxes, especially as you have an ever-growing government that needs more and more of your tax money to feed the beast to feed live vie thin. the more you lose of your personal freedom. freedom in america can be the freedom to educate your children. in the school where you would like to send them, private school, home school. reagan talks about freedom of religion, religious tolerance. we have the first amendments:
speech, press, assembling religion. the freedom to emigrate. think about that. when reagan was president, everybody behind the iron curtain lacked the freedom to emigrate. you can't go over the iron curtain. reagan's secretary of defense, cap wineberger, told me, anytime i mentioned the iron curtain to an audience -- he said third shoresly before he did -- you're going to be around longer than me. do me a favor. anytime you mention the berlin wall, ask your audience this question. in which direction did the east german guards who patrolled the berlin wall -- in which direction did they point their guns? east. on their own people. on their own people. they said you're talking to a former secretary of defense. walls are usually built to keep an enemy from invading. this was a wall to keep free people -- to keep people who wanted to be free from leaving.
it had bashed wire. peter robinson would wrote the "tear down this wall" speech said he flew over and there was raked gravel and the raked gravel was there so that if foot prints were seen there the night before because one of the east german guard let a relative go over, the guard would be responsible for letting the person go free. so freedom has many manifestations. reagan said only when people are freed to worship, create and build, only when they can decide their destiny and benefit from their open risks, only then do societies become dynamic and prosperous. he talked about the freedom to extract oil and energy. you know how much energy would be extracted in america right now by entrepreneurs if the gov just allowed the emto do so? right? the freedom to do that. and freedom was, said reagan, not just the exclusive dough
main of americans. -- domain of americans. it's one authorize deepest and nobless as precision0s of the human -- aspirations of the human spirit. americans need to be keepers of the flame of liberty. as he saw it. all right. second principle. get this down? first one? the first one-one out out of 11. faith, second one, faith. so, consistent with reagan you have constantly conservatives today -- freedom, freedom, freedom, but what reagan understood and what conservativism is really about is freedom needs faith. they are -- one is dependent on the other. faith is like the moral rudder to freedom. if you don't have -- if you have freedom -- freedom without faith can be just vice, and not
virtue. it can be las vegas, not the city of god. and freedom is elevated when you have faith to infuse it. faith provides a sankty identifying grace to freedom that elevates the free will and allows us to aspire to our better angels. reagan worked a lot with pope john paul ii who he was very close to, and john paul ii made a statement reagan could have made. freedom without faith can become cop confused, perverse, and can lead to the destruction of freedom for others. and you can think of examples of that. john paul ii, successor, pope benedict xvien in said the west suffers from a confused ideology of freedom. so we have freedom wrong. we don't totally understand freedom.
and because of that confused ideology we're suffering from a dictatorship of relativism. the scriptural versus galatians says do not use your free tom as opportunities -- freedom as opportunities of the flesh but use freedom to -- what? serve others. to serve your neighbor. right? to love your neighbor as yourself. russell kirk, who i mentioned before, 1974 classic, the roots of american order, talked about ordered liberty. you have to have an inner order before the country can have an outer order. and an external order. george washington talked about self-governing one's self before a nation could self-govern. right and you have to have a nation of self--governing, self-controlled people before you could have a successfully self-governing nation. great john adams quote.
the constitution was made for religious and moral people. and if you take that away, you're going to be in trouble. reagan constantly quoted george washington on this, on prayer. washington said that the image -- reagan said the image of george washington in the snow of valey forge was the most sublime image in american history because personified a people who knew it was not enough to depend on their own courage and goodness. they must seek help from god, their fatherrer and their preserver. bill clark, pat clark is here, we co-authored bill clark's biography, and bill clark was very close to ronald reagan and bill clark used to tell me all the time that run of reagan's favorite quotes, aside from the washington one, was from lincoln, where lincoln said, i'm often driven to my knees by the overwhelming conviction i have nowhere else to go.
i have noy else to go. to the contrary, reagan deeply feeder -- feared what happens to a free democratic society or any society when it scraps religious faith. here's a great speech he gave october 1988, at georgetown. at georgetown bicentennial. i also have the speech in the book. wouldn't think of that one. october, 1988. georgetown. this was a gem. reagan said, at its full flowering, freedom is the first principle of society. of this society of western society, and yet, freedom cannot exist alone. and that's why the theme for your bicentennial, georgetown, is so very apt. learning, faith, and freedom. each reinforces the other. each makes the others possible. for what are they without each other? and then he quote alexis dede
tocqueville who wrote "democracy in america. " he said it in 1835 and it's as true today as then. despotism may govern without faith but liberty cannot. think about that. despotism may govern without faith but liberty cannot. religion is more needed in democratic society than any other. right? you have the freedom to do things in a democratic society. and so to really control things and have order, you need a people that absence of law providing that order will self-govern themselves before you can self-govern a nation. reagan then warned, learning is a good thing but unless it's tempered by faith and a love of freedom it can be very dangerous. the names of many intellectuals are reported on the rolls of infamy. so reagan said, learning is about learning this vital relationship between faith and freedom. at gross city college, ounce of
the things we teach. faith and tree.com is our center for vision and values web site. wasn't planned on putting in the plug but it worked perfect. reagan said that twin beacons of faith and freedom that brighten the american sky. not the beak condition of freedom alone -- beacon of freedom alone. the twin beacons of faith and freedom that brighten the american sky. principle three. family. the very trinity that reagan worshiped. father, son, holy spirit, is a family. and reagan argued it was foundational to human civilization. reagan throughout this presidency constantly made statements on the family. this surprised me. i had no idea how true that was. in fact, this is one of the last principles i added to the book because when i saw the sheer frequency of these references, it became very clear.
reagan extolled the family as, quote, the most basic and important unit of society. the most durable of all institutions. the family is the nucleus of civilization. it is the cornerstone of american society, and also means the family disintegrates the country is in trouble. it is the engine of social progress. families stand at the center of society as the very foundation of freedom. and children belong in a family. and here's a very conservative thought, sentiment from reagan. it is in a family that children are not only cared for but they're taught that the moral values and tradition that give order and stability to our lives and to society as a whole. what happens when there's no longer a consensus or an understanding of what those morals and values and traditions are? right? is more important than ever that
american families affirm an older and more lasting set of values. again, the time-tested values. here again, another very conservative sentiment. it is up to families to preserve and pass on to each succeeding generation the values we most cherish. our concept of the family must also withstand the trends of lifestyle and legislation. reagan worried about progress that re-defined family according to the latest lifestyle. in one of this final formal proclamations as president, this was january 12, 1989. days before he leaves the presidency. he has already given the farewell address and reagan issues a formal proclamation on the family. he said this: we must teach youngsters the beauty of the loving life-long real estate shown between husband and wife
that is marriage. so here he is defining marriage, right, as the loving life-long relationship between husband and wife that is marriage, and the president's asked me because patty reagan says she thinks her father would not have stood in the way of gay marriage. i was asked by the press, where did reagan stand? reagan never commented on it. because in reagan's time this was unthinkable. anybody that would have proposed that idea in the 50s or 60s would have been -- cremecrat, republican, liberal, libertarian, would have been hauled off. nobody was thinking of this. people thought it was totally out of anybody's mental framework. but reagan, when you see these sentiments, the family has been with us from the dawn of human history. he said. what can each of us do as a father, daughter, mother, son,
or grandparent, to strengthen this divine institution? and here invokes, quote, that one holy family, jesus, mary and joseph, as a model of the family as well. and he warns foremost of those forces that would weaken or destroy it. the family, and before all this is really, i think, significant -- doctors will use this same phrase in another context. but reagan said that first of all that government should do no harm. to the family. should first of all -- first and foremost, do no harm. do no harm. still with me? four. sanctity and dignity of human life and then i'll do another one and skip a few. sanctity and dignity of human
life. reagan believed that the right to life is the first and most fundamental of all human freedoms. the first and most fundamental of all human freedoms. he said this in 1983. my administration is dedicated to the preservation of america as a free land -- we get it, we heard the freedom thing -- and there's no cause more important for preserving that freedom than aif i wering the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning. if you don't first have the right to life, there can be no other rights. there can't be freedom of press, free tom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to do anything, without first the right to life. that comes first from which all others flow. reagan actually supported a human life amendment to the u.s. constitution, which is
interesting because a lot of pro lifers at the time thought, well, you don't have to do that. don't have to mess with the constitution on this. had they done that it would have inserted into the constitution these words: the paramount right to life is rested in each human being from the moment of first -- fertilization without regard to age, health, or condition of dependency. think about that. very interesting. the obama hhs mandate, which requires all americans to fund abortions and so forth, would have been unconstitutional, would have directly violated the human life amendment if such amend would have been passes which would have been a long shot and probably never happen. but that was reagan's position. reagan's thinking on this, couple things. bill clark used to often point to reagan's experience as a lifeguard in dixon, illinois, at the rock river, when he
patrolledded the waters there for seven summers, seven days a week, like 15 hours a day. reagan saved the lives of 77 people as a lifeguard. ages of 15 to 22. got some lifeguards here? i have students who have been lifeguards and they say, i didn't save 77 people. but that instilled in reagan, clark would argue, a really fundamental respect for -- way back in the 1920s. but it was also an outgrowth of his faith. january 1984 speech to religious broadcasters, reagan said, quote, god's most blessed gift to the family is the gift of life. he sent us the prince of peace as a babe in the manger, and then he said this. he compared the abortion movement to slavery, "the new york times" went nuts when he
did this. this nation fought a terrible war so that black americans would be guaranteed their god-given rights. abraham lincoln recognized we could not survive as a free land when some could decide whether others should be free oar slaves. -- free or slaves. today another questioning begs to be asked how can we survive as a free nation when some decide that others are not fit to live and should be done away with? i believe no challenge is more important to the character of america than restoring the right to life of all human beings. without, again, without which that right no other rights have meaning, and then just said this, quote, suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not for such is the kingdom of god. and ended with that. reagan said that every human person is a race -- res sacra,
sacred reality. every human being is a sacred reality, and because every human being is infused with a soul, that means every human being is eternal because sole sowls are eterm, and because -- because souls are eternal and because of that each and every human being is more important than the state because states are not eternal. souls and human beingses are. ... speech to a small room of pro-life leaders. i had to go to reagan library to find this. he talked to them and said i know some of you have been accused of being single-issue voters but what issues is of greater significance than this. he ended with